[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2026
CRM-M-45065-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
211 CRM-M-45065-2025
Date of decision: 16.01.2026
Inderjeet Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY
Present: Ms. Indra, Advocate for
Mr. Harsh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J (ORAL)
1. This order shall dispose of present petition for grant of anticipatory
bail filed by the petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.55 dated 21.07.2025 under
Sections 13,18,29,33 of Insecticides Act, 1968, Section 10 of Insecticide Rules,
1971, Section 7,8 of Fertilizers Control Order, 1985 and 7 of Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 318(4) of BNS.
2. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has since joined the
investigation and is no longer required for further custodial interrogation.
4. On 05.09.2025, following order was passed by this Court:
"Petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No.55 dated
21.07.2025, registered against him, for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 13, 18, 29, 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968,
Section 10 of Insecticide Rules, 1971, Sections 7, 8 of Fertilizers
Control Order, 1985 and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act,
1955 read with Section 318(4) of BNS at Police Station
MehalKalan, District Barnala, has prayed for grant of pre-arrest
bail.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case, as also that if the allegations
levelled in the FIR are presumed to be true, he was selling
insecticides, pesticides etc. from unauthorized godown, as also
certain chemicals were recovered which are not registered in the
State of Punjab and banned by the Central Government. Learned
counsel submits that in the absence of any complaint lodged by
any farmer/purchaser etc., no offence under Section 420 IPC is
made out. At best, petitioner is alleged to have violated some of
the provisions of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. The samples were
drawn from all the chemicals/pesticides etc. found at the
unauthorized place, documents etc. are also in possession of the
investigating agency of the State. Taking his submissions further,
learned counsel contends that prior to registration of the FIR, no
written consent of the State Government or any authorized person
was taken, as required under Section 31 in the Insecticides Act,
1968. Learned counsel also refers to judgment of Coordinate
Bench in CRM-M 25881-2016 titled as 'Bhupinder Singh vs. State
of Punjab and another', wherein the FIR under Section 420, 120-
B IPC, Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section
29 of Insecticides Act, 1968, was quashed with the following
observations:-
"The question arises if FIR in the instant case could be registered.
In this case, complainant was specifically directed by this Court to
file a specific affidavit as to whether FIR is maintainable under
the provision of Insecticide Act and sanction is required under
Section 31 of the Act which is pre conditions before filing a
criminal complaint. Reply by way of affidavit dated 12.01.2018
was filed. The extract of the same is as under:-
"6. That it is correct that under the provisions of Insecticide Act,
1968, FIR is not maintainable, as well as sanction is required
before launching the prosecution. However, keeping in view the
above facts and circumstances of the case, the answering
respondent had no option, but to report the matter to the police
due to the illegal sale. Since this present F.I.R. had been registered
not only under the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 but also
under Sections 420, 120- B of the IPC and Sections 7 and 10A of
the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for which no sanction is
required, hence this F.I.R. is maintainable. Since the challan had
been presented by the Police in this case before the learned Court
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. The petitioners must plead
their defence before the learned trial court.
In case Pardeep Kumar Garg and other cited Supra, FIR was
registered under Insecticides Act 1968, Insecticides Rules,1971,
The Seeds Act, 1966, The Seeds (Control) Order 1983, The
Fertilizers (Control) Order 1985, The Essential Commodities Act
1955 and under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal
Code. The FIR was quashed that complaint is maintainable and
registration of FIR is misused of process of law.
In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view that FIR
No.155 dated 10.09.2015, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, Section
7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and Section 29 of
Insecticides Act, 1968, registered at Police Station City
Kotkapura, District Faridkot, and all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom qua the petitioners are hereby quashed and
petition stands disposed of accordingly."
In view of the above, learned counsel submits that the presence of
the petitioner is not needed for custodial interrogation, as also
petitioner is willing to join the investigation as and when called
for by the IO.
Status report/reply by way of affidavit of Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh,
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barnala has been placed on
record. Apart from mentioning the factual backdrop of the case,
learned State counsel refers to para 4 of the reply, wherein it has
been stated that the material/chemicals were stored at
"unathorized place", in disconformity with the provisions of
Insecticides Act. Though, it has further been stated that some of
the samples (40 Kg Carbendazim 12% + Mancozed 63% WP) are
also banned in the State of Punjab. However, samples drawn of
Diammonium Phosphate confirmed with the specification.
Complete analysis report is, however, awaited.
It has further been mentioned that no other case of like nature/any
other FIR is registered against the petitioner. Towards the end, it
has been pointed out that petitioner is not entitled to the grant of
pre-arrest bail.
Heard. Documents on record including the judgment of
Coordinate Bench also perused.
In view of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the petitioner is hereby directed to join investigation within
seven days from today and co-operate in the same. In the event of
the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on interim bail on
his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. He shall also abide by
conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS. Adjourned to
16.10.2025 "
6. Keeping in view the above submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the petitioner as also the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation,
interim bail granted vide order dated 05.09.2025 is hereby confirmed, subject to
conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS. Further the petitioner is
directed to join investigation as and when required in future by way of written
notice for such purpose to be served by Investigating Officer of this case upon the
petitioner; he will not tamper with the evidence nor will influence the witnesses
and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
7. The petition stands allowed.
16.01.2026 ( AARADHNA SAWHNEY )
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
